Can a planet be tidally unlocked?How to explain one side of Super Earth is smoother than the other side?Will...
Why does finding small effects in large studies indicate publication bias?
Why do BLDC motor (1 kW) controllers have so many MOSFETs?
Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism?
What does “to the numbers” mean in landing clearance?
Why Third 'Reich'? Why is 'reich' not translated when 'third' is? What is the English synonym of reich?
Why would you use 2 alternate layout buttons instead of 1, when only one can be selected at once
Will linear voltage regulator step up current?
Exploding Numbers
Do error bars on probabilities have any meaning?
Is opening a file faster than reading variable content?
Coloring in a multirow
Is it common to refer to someone as "Prof. Dr. [LastName]"?
Does an intelligent undead have a soul in 5e D&D?
What caused Doctor Strange to repent of his selfishness and become Earth's protector?
Why is the meaning of kanji 閑 "leisure"?
multiple null checks in Java8
Why are energy weapons seen as more acceptable in children's shows than guns that fire bullets?
Why is Shelob considered evil?
Current measurement op-amp calculation
Stream.findFirst different than Optional.of?
Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?
Build ASCII Podiums
Is it possible to detect 100% of SQLi with a simple regex?
How does the income of your target audience matter for logo design?
Can a planet be tidally unlocked?
How to explain one side of Super Earth is smoother than the other side?Will moons orbiting gas giants always be tidally locked?Could a Tidally Locked Moon Ever be “Unlocked” via Artificial Means?Effects of forcing a planet to tidally lock onto its moonWhat happens when a tidally-locked planet breaks out of the synchronous rotation?Moonlight and the night side of a tidally locked planetHow much time is needed for a belt of migrating vegetation?What would wind currents and water cycle look like on a tidally locked planet?Liquid water on both sides of a tidally locked planet. Feasible?What are the atmospheric conditions on a planet tidally locked to its moon?What's the longest plausible orbital period for a habitable planet with a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance?Is this habitable moon possible?Tidally locked dual planet system and their magnetospheres
$begingroup$
In my answer to another question, I suggested that the Super-Earth in question be tidally locked to its host star for a period of time while part of its surface experienced a bombardment. After that's finished, however, I'd want the planet to rotate normally, ideally with a rotation period similar to one Earth day. The problem is, I know of no examples of planets or moons becoming tidally locked and then tidal unlocked via natural means (although we've talked about doing this artificially).
Here are some specifications for my idealized version of the system:
- The star is a K-type main sequence dwarf of about $0.5L_{odot}$ and $0.7M_{odot}$.
- The planet is a Super-Earth of about two Earth masses, orbiting at $0.4$ AU.
- The planet's final rotation period should be $sim$24 hours.
- Initially, there is an Earth-like atmosphere, and I would prefer for it to be retained, but that's not a necessity.
- There is no life on the planet yet, although there may be in the future.
I'd like to avoid catastrophic events like collisions with another planet, and I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone. Bearing this in mind, is it possible for this tidally-locked planet to naturally have its rotation period decreased to 24 hours within, say, 100 million years?
planets tides
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my answer to another question, I suggested that the Super-Earth in question be tidally locked to its host star for a period of time while part of its surface experienced a bombardment. After that's finished, however, I'd want the planet to rotate normally, ideally with a rotation period similar to one Earth day. The problem is, I know of no examples of planets or moons becoming tidally locked and then tidal unlocked via natural means (although we've talked about doing this artificially).
Here are some specifications for my idealized version of the system:
- The star is a K-type main sequence dwarf of about $0.5L_{odot}$ and $0.7M_{odot}$.
- The planet is a Super-Earth of about two Earth masses, orbiting at $0.4$ AU.
- The planet's final rotation period should be $sim$24 hours.
- Initially, there is an Earth-like atmosphere, and I would prefer for it to be retained, but that's not a necessity.
- There is no life on the planet yet, although there may be in the future.
I'd like to avoid catastrophic events like collisions with another planet, and I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone. Bearing this in mind, is it possible for this tidally-locked planet to naturally have its rotation period decreased to 24 hours within, say, 100 million years?
planets tides
$endgroup$
50
$begingroup$
...but you're the orbital mechanics guy!
$endgroup$
– Frostfyre
yesterday
30
$begingroup$
This... This is like Mary Berry asking me to give her advice on how to bake cakes...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
yesterday
9
$begingroup$
That's simple, remove the star. Oh, "habitable". well, if you don't want to do what it takes...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
13
$begingroup$
What's cool about this question is that it's one of those, "I can't believe that's never been asked here before!" questions.
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Eth It might be conceivable, though, to have it originally tidally locked to a gas giant and then remove that?
$endgroup$
– Aesin
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my answer to another question, I suggested that the Super-Earth in question be tidally locked to its host star for a period of time while part of its surface experienced a bombardment. After that's finished, however, I'd want the planet to rotate normally, ideally with a rotation period similar to one Earth day. The problem is, I know of no examples of planets or moons becoming tidally locked and then tidal unlocked via natural means (although we've talked about doing this artificially).
Here are some specifications for my idealized version of the system:
- The star is a K-type main sequence dwarf of about $0.5L_{odot}$ and $0.7M_{odot}$.
- The planet is a Super-Earth of about two Earth masses, orbiting at $0.4$ AU.
- The planet's final rotation period should be $sim$24 hours.
- Initially, there is an Earth-like atmosphere, and I would prefer for it to be retained, but that's not a necessity.
- There is no life on the planet yet, although there may be in the future.
I'd like to avoid catastrophic events like collisions with another planet, and I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone. Bearing this in mind, is it possible for this tidally-locked planet to naturally have its rotation period decreased to 24 hours within, say, 100 million years?
planets tides
$endgroup$
In my answer to another question, I suggested that the Super-Earth in question be tidally locked to its host star for a period of time while part of its surface experienced a bombardment. After that's finished, however, I'd want the planet to rotate normally, ideally with a rotation period similar to one Earth day. The problem is, I know of no examples of planets or moons becoming tidally locked and then tidal unlocked via natural means (although we've talked about doing this artificially).
Here are some specifications for my idealized version of the system:
- The star is a K-type main sequence dwarf of about $0.5L_{odot}$ and $0.7M_{odot}$.
- The planet is a Super-Earth of about two Earth masses, orbiting at $0.4$ AU.
- The planet's final rotation period should be $sim$24 hours.
- Initially, there is an Earth-like atmosphere, and I would prefer for it to be retained, but that's not a necessity.
- There is no life on the planet yet, although there may be in the future.
I'd like to avoid catastrophic events like collisions with another planet, and I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone. Bearing this in mind, is it possible for this tidally-locked planet to naturally have its rotation period decreased to 24 hours within, say, 100 million years?
planets tides
planets tides
edited yesterday
HDE 226868
asked yesterday
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
65.1k13226423
65.1k13226423
50
$begingroup$
...but you're the orbital mechanics guy!
$endgroup$
– Frostfyre
yesterday
30
$begingroup$
This... This is like Mary Berry asking me to give her advice on how to bake cakes...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
yesterday
9
$begingroup$
That's simple, remove the star. Oh, "habitable". well, if you don't want to do what it takes...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
13
$begingroup$
What's cool about this question is that it's one of those, "I can't believe that's never been asked here before!" questions.
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Eth It might be conceivable, though, to have it originally tidally locked to a gas giant and then remove that?
$endgroup$
– Aesin
yesterday
add a comment |
50
$begingroup$
...but you're the orbital mechanics guy!
$endgroup$
– Frostfyre
yesterday
30
$begingroup$
This... This is like Mary Berry asking me to give her advice on how to bake cakes...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
yesterday
9
$begingroup$
That's simple, remove the star. Oh, "habitable". well, if you don't want to do what it takes...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
13
$begingroup$
What's cool about this question is that it's one of those, "I can't believe that's never been asked here before!" questions.
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Eth It might be conceivable, though, to have it originally tidally locked to a gas giant and then remove that?
$endgroup$
– Aesin
yesterday
50
50
$begingroup$
...but you're the orbital mechanics guy!
$endgroup$
– Frostfyre
yesterday
$begingroup$
...but you're the orbital mechanics guy!
$endgroup$
– Frostfyre
yesterday
30
30
$begingroup$
This... This is like Mary Berry asking me to give her advice on how to bake cakes...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
yesterday
$begingroup$
This... This is like Mary Berry asking me to give her advice on how to bake cakes...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
yesterday
9
9
$begingroup$
That's simple, remove the star. Oh, "habitable". well, if you don't want to do what it takes...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's simple, remove the star. Oh, "habitable". well, if you don't want to do what it takes...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
13
13
$begingroup$
What's cool about this question is that it's one of those, "I can't believe that's never been asked here before!" questions.
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday
$begingroup$
What's cool about this question is that it's one of those, "I can't believe that's never been asked here before!" questions.
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@Eth It might be conceivable, though, to have it originally tidally locked to a gas giant and then remove that?
$endgroup$
– Aesin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth It might be conceivable, though, to have it originally tidally locked to a gas giant and then remove that?
$endgroup$
– Aesin
yesterday
add a comment |
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If your tidally-locked planet captured a large moon, sort of like the one we have here on Earth, the tidal forces of the moon could be stronger than the tidal forces from the star. This would result in the planet gradually losing its tidal lock to the star in exchange for a tidal lock with the moon.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
11
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
A planet in our very solar system has actually gone through such a shift! Venus currently has a 243-day long retrograde spin, but likely didn't always. The current theory says it started with the usual fast spin and underwent tidal locking normally. And it would have stopped there, but Venus's thick atmosphere generates thermally driven atmospheric tides which were strong enough to overshoot tidal lock and cause a retrograde spin. Currently its rotation is an equilibrium between the atmospheric tide pushing in retrograde and the sun's tidal dissipation pushing in prograde. See wikipedia's page on retrograde and prograde motion.
Sounds like you aren't particular about keeping the atmosphere... are you cool with a really thick atmosphere? If that's ok, and you don't mind retrograde spin, this one is based on an actual planet. However, I'm not sure how strong that effect would need to be in your scenario.
What if... your tidally locked earth eventually had intelligent life that wrecked their atmosphere...
$endgroup$
22
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. Not without another body getting involved.
Tidal forces within the planet are constantly pushing it towards the "locked" state, you need a massive input of energy to change that. We're talking really dramatic events.
You might be able to achieve something through a near encounter with a massive body (for example a large rogue planet passing through the system) where there is no collision. However you'd end up with a very elliptical orbit and a second encounter to send it back towards circular would stretch belief rather.
You could achieve the desired effect by having it be a binary planet though. The two planets are locked to each other but each experiences normal day-night sequences. The surfaces facing towards and away from each other could plausibly take on different characteristics.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone.
Does the planet have to start out in the habitable zone? If not, here's a suggestion, in a few stages, involving a gas giant on a very long period, comet-like elliptical orbit:
Formation: have the planet initially form on a very close orbit to its star (on the order of several days), where it is tidally locked.
Increasing rotation speed: Once the bombardment is done, have the rogue gas giant make a close approach which makes its orbit slightly eccentric, such that the favorable tidal lock is a 3:2 resonance like Mercury, but with a rotation period faster than its current rotation. Give it a few hundred thousand years for the rotation period to stabilize, then have the gas giant swing by again and boost it to a more eccentric orbit where a 5:2 lock is favorable, again with a slightly faster rotation. Repeat until spin is fast enough.
Transfer to habitable zone: Close approaches of the gas giant boost its apoapsis past the habitable zone. Allow precession and timing to cause a close approach as it crosses the habitable zone, with your planet moving inward, the gas giant moving outward, and your planet slinging around the sunward side of the gas giant. This is equivalent to a large radial burn and should serve to mostly circularize its orbit in that position.
Optional - safety: If the gas giant is on such a long-period orbit, it will go quite far from your sun. A passing star/red dwarf/similarly massive object should be sufficient to divert it from making further passes deep within your solar system and messing up what's been set up.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An extremely powerful nearby pulsar that only hits one edge of the planet.
While this is a rather "out-there" scenario, it's possible for a nearby, very powerful pulsar to repeatedly hit the planet during a small portion of its orbit, but only hit it on one side. This would impart a force to one side of the planet, slowly spinning it up over time the same way you can spin a ball by hitting one side of it.
As a worked example, let's arbitrarily say that the planet takes up a half an arcsecond from the point of view of the pulsar. That's in the same rough angular size as Earth is from Pluto's perspective, so it sounds reasonable. We'll say that the pulsar is as powerful as the Crab Nebula pulsar, so a power of $10^{28} W$ according to this. The pulsar spins, so that half-arcsecond planet is getting hit by one of the two beams a total of $1/296000$ of the time. That translates to getting full power $1/2592000$ of the time, which means that our average power is $10^{28} W / 2592000 = 4*10^{21} W$. If the planet is getting this for, say $1/10000$ of its orbit (I'm just pulling numbers out of my [REDACTED] here, but it sounds reasonable), the average power is $4*10^{17} W$. Now, the rotational energy of the earth is $2.138*10^{29} J$, and our planet is double its mass, so we quadruple the energy (remember, kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared) to come up with a required kinetic energy of $8.56*10^{29} J$. Now, if the pulsar were to transfer energy with perfect efficiency, and we ignore the forces that tidally locked the planet in the first place, this would restart the rotation in $8.56*10^{29} J/4*10^{21} W = 2475 ~days$. We can assume an energy transfer of, let's randomly say 0.00001% because of most of the pulsar beam missing the planet and some of the energy being transferred to heat and translation instead of rotation, that moves the required time up to about 68 million earth years, still within your hundred million year timeframe.
So, in conclusion, my worked example with half the numbers made up and most of the other half being Fermi estimates seems to work. I'm not sure what that level of radio waves will do to a planet, and I doubt it would be pretty or at all nice to any life present, but it seems to work to restart the spin. If anyone has numbers for any of the stuff I completely made up, please comment and I'll change them to actually correct values.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, by radial mass redistribution.
Something similar to the iron catastrophe on early Earth, or the melting of ice caps after ice ages.
If something rises the internal temperature, it could trigger the migration of heavy materials towards the center of the planet, therefore reducing the moment of inertia and accelerating the rotation. As in the case of the iron catastrophe, the friction generated by the mass migration to the core will produce further warming and accelerate the process even further.
The heating of the planet's interior required to trigger such process can happen by multiple processes, like extra insulation from a thickening crust or deposits of some kind of snow. Natural accumulation of radioactive minerals (as it happened in Uranium mines) that reach critical mass to start a natural nuclear reactor. Or, maybe the tidal locking stopped or slowed down volcanism and that could rise the internal temperature enough to trigger the process.
A similar effect could happen even when cooling. A phase change can happen that transform a light mineral into a heavy one, but in that case the frictional heating would stop the process instead of accelerating it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question doesn't seem to forbid technological methods, so there are a few options there.
The obvious solution would be to put a giant Catherine wheel of angled thrusters around the Equator, and start making the thing rotate. You may want to build a geostationary ring around the planet and link it with the surface with space elevator cables and put thrusters on the circle, in order to avoid blowing the atmosphere away. Keeping the contraption stable and in one piece will require some work, but I assume that's the kind of small engineering problems that won't stop you. You can also replace the atmosphere afterwards (or store it for the duration).
The problem is, you have to overcome the attraction between the tide bulge and the star, so this will require some serious impulse from your planetary thrusters. Which means big, expensive thrusters and the risk of ripping the entire planet apart and turn it into a molten ball of volcanic madness. So the brute force approach is not a good idea.
Instead of trying to make it rotate in one go, you can impart some pendulum movement, pushing in one direction then the other, making it follow the final phase of tidal locking in reverse. At some point, the pendulum movement will be big enough to make a complete revolution, at which point you can simply keep pushing to accelerate to the required rotation speed.
Now, what engines to use? Low-grade mass drivers would make you either dig giant holes in the surface or require lots of mass from elsewhere in the system. You could if you are in a hurry (those are cheap, low Isp/high impulse engines), but that's rather inelegant.
You could use photonic thrusters (aka giant spotlights) if you have good powerplants like matter-energy converters, are in no hurry and there is no-one flying around to be dazzled. More traffic-friendly exotic versions may be possible, for example emitting neutrinos or gravitational waves, in case your neighbours complain about the light show.
There is a middle ground of particle accelerators, requiring much less mass (and being more refined) than the mass drivers, but giving more thrust than pure photonic engines. The simplest version will heat matter into superhot plasma and let it escape by a nozzle at some fraction of c.
Of course, you have a big fusion powerplant already available, so you can take advantage of that. If you are in no hurry, put giant solar sails on your orbital ring and turn it into a (solar) windmill. Feel free to put mirrors all around the star to help concentrate energy on the sails. Or, if you have fancier tastes, put a light Dyson swarm there and have the collectors beam the power with lasers or focused particle accelerators. That may help avoiding cooking the surface with the unfocused mirrors.
Alternatively, if you don't want to build things on the planet itself, put those on local planetoids and move them around. With the right grazing trajectories, you can use gravitational tugging to start making the planet wobble. Once it starts rotating, a low orbit, fast-orbiting moon may help a bit for accelerating it. Be careful to not overdo it, you may cause more volcanisme than desired otherwise.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Referencing this answer.
Based on information in the answer above, liquid planets/moons (like Europa) take much longer to tidal lock. Per the Wikipedia entry for Europa, it may not be fully tidal locked even now. Perhaps a concentration of greenhouse gases caused the frozen surface to melt. Throw in some near misses from other large bodies and you might be able to get the planet spinning again.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I might suggest the introduction of another massive body into the system; rather than an actual impact.
Numerous interstellar planetoids do exist, and every now and then we'll find one or two entering our own solar system. The usual clue that gives them away as extra-stellar is that they have a hyperbolic trajectory, instead of an ellipsoidal one, which can't come about in-system.
If this was a massive enough body, or one that moved slowly enough (though there are restrictions within reasonability there), the perturbation of the gravitational field would cause a tidal effect on the planet, potentially one strong enough to realign its axis of rotation and pull it out of being tidally locked to its host star. Afterward, the planetoid could pass out of the system on its merry way, and the tidal effect would be over.
In most cases, it would take some time to occur; but it would happen as the whole system would be destabilized.
The foreign object could be anything from a particularly large interstellar asteroid to a hypervelocity black hole.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Planet 9. Have a large planet whose orbit comes into the inner solar system only every few thousand years on only 1 in a hundred/thousand times would it be close enough to effect your planet. Depending on how close it passes it could have a huge effect on your planets orbit and spin.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139457%2fcan-a-planet-be-tidally-unlocked%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If your tidally-locked planet captured a large moon, sort of like the one we have here on Earth, the tidal forces of the moon could be stronger than the tidal forces from the star. This would result in the planet gradually losing its tidal lock to the star in exchange for a tidal lock with the moon.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
11
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
If your tidally-locked planet captured a large moon, sort of like the one we have here on Earth, the tidal forces of the moon could be stronger than the tidal forces from the star. This would result in the planet gradually losing its tidal lock to the star in exchange for a tidal lock with the moon.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
11
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
If your tidally-locked planet captured a large moon, sort of like the one we have here on Earth, the tidal forces of the moon could be stronger than the tidal forces from the star. This would result in the planet gradually losing its tidal lock to the star in exchange for a tidal lock with the moon.
$endgroup$
If your tidally-locked planet captured a large moon, sort of like the one we have here on Earth, the tidal forces of the moon could be stronger than the tidal forces from the star. This would result in the planet gradually losing its tidal lock to the star in exchange for a tidal lock with the moon.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Mike NicholsMike Nichols
8,66952972
8,66952972
3
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
11
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
3
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
11
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
$begingroup$
It's difficult for a body to capture a large moon, but I guess I don't really have the right to say anything about unlikely scenarios, given my answer utilizes a very powerful pulsar that stays pointing in the right direction for millions of years.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday
11
11
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
$begingroup$
Related xkcd What-If: "If we stopped rotating, the Moon would stop drifting away from us. Instead of slowing us down, its tides would accelerate our spin. Quietly, gently, the Moon's gravity would tug on our planet . . . and Earth would start turning again."
$endgroup$
– John Locke
yesterday
5
5
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Sidney Yes, such an event would produce a torque on the planet, but my intuition is that this torque would be much smaller in magnitude than the cumulative effect of a moon tugging over millions of years. Additionally, such an encounter would significantly perturb the planet’s orbit as Tim B points out in his answer.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
$begingroup$
Could the bombardment hurl enough debris into orbit to create a suitable moon?
$endgroup$
– Peter Humburg
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
@WhatRoughBeast Or a smaller impactor that strikes the "new" moon at the right time, angle and speed to slow it down enough to be caught in orbit. No pre-existing moon needed.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
A planet in our very solar system has actually gone through such a shift! Venus currently has a 243-day long retrograde spin, but likely didn't always. The current theory says it started with the usual fast spin and underwent tidal locking normally. And it would have stopped there, but Venus's thick atmosphere generates thermally driven atmospheric tides which were strong enough to overshoot tidal lock and cause a retrograde spin. Currently its rotation is an equilibrium between the atmospheric tide pushing in retrograde and the sun's tidal dissipation pushing in prograde. See wikipedia's page on retrograde and prograde motion.
Sounds like you aren't particular about keeping the atmosphere... are you cool with a really thick atmosphere? If that's ok, and you don't mind retrograde spin, this one is based on an actual planet. However, I'm not sure how strong that effect would need to be in your scenario.
What if... your tidally locked earth eventually had intelligent life that wrecked their atmosphere...
$endgroup$
22
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A planet in our very solar system has actually gone through such a shift! Venus currently has a 243-day long retrograde spin, but likely didn't always. The current theory says it started with the usual fast spin and underwent tidal locking normally. And it would have stopped there, but Venus's thick atmosphere generates thermally driven atmospheric tides which were strong enough to overshoot tidal lock and cause a retrograde spin. Currently its rotation is an equilibrium between the atmospheric tide pushing in retrograde and the sun's tidal dissipation pushing in prograde. See wikipedia's page on retrograde and prograde motion.
Sounds like you aren't particular about keeping the atmosphere... are you cool with a really thick atmosphere? If that's ok, and you don't mind retrograde spin, this one is based on an actual planet. However, I'm not sure how strong that effect would need to be in your scenario.
What if... your tidally locked earth eventually had intelligent life that wrecked their atmosphere...
$endgroup$
22
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A planet in our very solar system has actually gone through such a shift! Venus currently has a 243-day long retrograde spin, but likely didn't always. The current theory says it started with the usual fast spin and underwent tidal locking normally. And it would have stopped there, but Venus's thick atmosphere generates thermally driven atmospheric tides which were strong enough to overshoot tidal lock and cause a retrograde spin. Currently its rotation is an equilibrium between the atmospheric tide pushing in retrograde and the sun's tidal dissipation pushing in prograde. See wikipedia's page on retrograde and prograde motion.
Sounds like you aren't particular about keeping the atmosphere... are you cool with a really thick atmosphere? If that's ok, and you don't mind retrograde spin, this one is based on an actual planet. However, I'm not sure how strong that effect would need to be in your scenario.
What if... your tidally locked earth eventually had intelligent life that wrecked their atmosphere...
$endgroup$
A planet in our very solar system has actually gone through such a shift! Venus currently has a 243-day long retrograde spin, but likely didn't always. The current theory says it started with the usual fast spin and underwent tidal locking normally. And it would have stopped there, but Venus's thick atmosphere generates thermally driven atmospheric tides which were strong enough to overshoot tidal lock and cause a retrograde spin. Currently its rotation is an equilibrium between the atmospheric tide pushing in retrograde and the sun's tidal dissipation pushing in prograde. See wikipedia's page on retrograde and prograde motion.
Sounds like you aren't particular about keeping the atmosphere... are you cool with a really thick atmosphere? If that's ok, and you don't mind retrograde spin, this one is based on an actual planet. However, I'm not sure how strong that effect would need to be in your scenario.
What if... your tidally locked earth eventually had intelligent life that wrecked their atmosphere...
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
BoomChuckBoomChuck
1,491139
1,491139
22
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
add a comment |
22
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
22
22
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
$begingroup$
What kind of "intelligent" species would wreck their own atmosphere?! /s
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Thomas we're doing our best in case you didn't notice ;-)
$endgroup$
– Ister
yesterday
6
6
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
$begingroup$
I noticed ;)
$endgroup$
– Thomas
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. Not without another body getting involved.
Tidal forces within the planet are constantly pushing it towards the "locked" state, you need a massive input of energy to change that. We're talking really dramatic events.
You might be able to achieve something through a near encounter with a massive body (for example a large rogue planet passing through the system) where there is no collision. However you'd end up with a very elliptical orbit and a second encounter to send it back towards circular would stretch belief rather.
You could achieve the desired effect by having it be a binary planet though. The two planets are locked to each other but each experiences normal day-night sequences. The surfaces facing towards and away from each other could plausibly take on different characteristics.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. Not without another body getting involved.
Tidal forces within the planet are constantly pushing it towards the "locked" state, you need a massive input of energy to change that. We're talking really dramatic events.
You might be able to achieve something through a near encounter with a massive body (for example a large rogue planet passing through the system) where there is no collision. However you'd end up with a very elliptical orbit and a second encounter to send it back towards circular would stretch belief rather.
You could achieve the desired effect by having it be a binary planet though. The two planets are locked to each other but each experiences normal day-night sequences. The surfaces facing towards and away from each other could plausibly take on different characteristics.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. Not without another body getting involved.
Tidal forces within the planet are constantly pushing it towards the "locked" state, you need a massive input of energy to change that. We're talking really dramatic events.
You might be able to achieve something through a near encounter with a massive body (for example a large rogue planet passing through the system) where there is no collision. However you'd end up with a very elliptical orbit and a second encounter to send it back towards circular would stretch belief rather.
You could achieve the desired effect by having it be a binary planet though. The two planets are locked to each other but each experiences normal day-night sequences. The surfaces facing towards and away from each other could plausibly take on different characteristics.
$endgroup$
No. Not without another body getting involved.
Tidal forces within the planet are constantly pushing it towards the "locked" state, you need a massive input of energy to change that. We're talking really dramatic events.
You might be able to achieve something through a near encounter with a massive body (for example a large rogue planet passing through the system) where there is no collision. However you'd end up with a very elliptical orbit and a second encounter to send it back towards circular would stretch belief rather.
You could achieve the desired effect by having it be a binary planet though. The two planets are locked to each other but each experiences normal day-night sequences. The surfaces facing towards and away from each other could plausibly take on different characteristics.
answered yesterday
Tim B♦Tim B
62.1k24174296
62.1k24174296
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 My initial thought, before reading any of the answers, was actually a combination of two of the points in your answer: 1 rogue planet + 2 tidal locking = capture a rogue planet into a binary planet rotation, then let tidal forces from the captured rogue spin up the original planet.
$endgroup$
– Dalila
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone.
Does the planet have to start out in the habitable zone? If not, here's a suggestion, in a few stages, involving a gas giant on a very long period, comet-like elliptical orbit:
Formation: have the planet initially form on a very close orbit to its star (on the order of several days), where it is tidally locked.
Increasing rotation speed: Once the bombardment is done, have the rogue gas giant make a close approach which makes its orbit slightly eccentric, such that the favorable tidal lock is a 3:2 resonance like Mercury, but with a rotation period faster than its current rotation. Give it a few hundred thousand years for the rotation period to stabilize, then have the gas giant swing by again and boost it to a more eccentric orbit where a 5:2 lock is favorable, again with a slightly faster rotation. Repeat until spin is fast enough.
Transfer to habitable zone: Close approaches of the gas giant boost its apoapsis past the habitable zone. Allow precession and timing to cause a close approach as it crosses the habitable zone, with your planet moving inward, the gas giant moving outward, and your planet slinging around the sunward side of the gas giant. This is equivalent to a large radial burn and should serve to mostly circularize its orbit in that position.
Optional - safety: If the gas giant is on such a long-period orbit, it will go quite far from your sun. A passing star/red dwarf/similarly massive object should be sufficient to divert it from making further passes deep within your solar system and messing up what's been set up.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone.
Does the planet have to start out in the habitable zone? If not, here's a suggestion, in a few stages, involving a gas giant on a very long period, comet-like elliptical orbit:
Formation: have the planet initially form on a very close orbit to its star (on the order of several days), where it is tidally locked.
Increasing rotation speed: Once the bombardment is done, have the rogue gas giant make a close approach which makes its orbit slightly eccentric, such that the favorable tidal lock is a 3:2 resonance like Mercury, but with a rotation period faster than its current rotation. Give it a few hundred thousand years for the rotation period to stabilize, then have the gas giant swing by again and boost it to a more eccentric orbit where a 5:2 lock is favorable, again with a slightly faster rotation. Repeat until spin is fast enough.
Transfer to habitable zone: Close approaches of the gas giant boost its apoapsis past the habitable zone. Allow precession and timing to cause a close approach as it crosses the habitable zone, with your planet moving inward, the gas giant moving outward, and your planet slinging around the sunward side of the gas giant. This is equivalent to a large radial burn and should serve to mostly circularize its orbit in that position.
Optional - safety: If the gas giant is on such a long-period orbit, it will go quite far from your sun. A passing star/red dwarf/similarly massive object should be sufficient to divert it from making further passes deep within your solar system and messing up what's been set up.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone.
Does the planet have to start out in the habitable zone? If not, here's a suggestion, in a few stages, involving a gas giant on a very long period, comet-like elliptical orbit:
Formation: have the planet initially form on a very close orbit to its star (on the order of several days), where it is tidally locked.
Increasing rotation speed: Once the bombardment is done, have the rogue gas giant make a close approach which makes its orbit slightly eccentric, such that the favorable tidal lock is a 3:2 resonance like Mercury, but with a rotation period faster than its current rotation. Give it a few hundred thousand years for the rotation period to stabilize, then have the gas giant swing by again and boost it to a more eccentric orbit where a 5:2 lock is favorable, again with a slightly faster rotation. Repeat until spin is fast enough.
Transfer to habitable zone: Close approaches of the gas giant boost its apoapsis past the habitable zone. Allow precession and timing to cause a close approach as it crosses the habitable zone, with your planet moving inward, the gas giant moving outward, and your planet slinging around the sunward side of the gas giant. This is equivalent to a large radial burn and should serve to mostly circularize its orbit in that position.
Optional - safety: If the gas giant is on such a long-period orbit, it will go quite far from your sun. A passing star/red dwarf/similarly massive object should be sufficient to divert it from making further passes deep within your solar system and messing up what's been set up.
$endgroup$
I'd also want the planet's orbit to stay roughly where it is - in the habitable zone.
Does the planet have to start out in the habitable zone? If not, here's a suggestion, in a few stages, involving a gas giant on a very long period, comet-like elliptical orbit:
Formation: have the planet initially form on a very close orbit to its star (on the order of several days), where it is tidally locked.
Increasing rotation speed: Once the bombardment is done, have the rogue gas giant make a close approach which makes its orbit slightly eccentric, such that the favorable tidal lock is a 3:2 resonance like Mercury, but with a rotation period faster than its current rotation. Give it a few hundred thousand years for the rotation period to stabilize, then have the gas giant swing by again and boost it to a more eccentric orbit where a 5:2 lock is favorable, again with a slightly faster rotation. Repeat until spin is fast enough.
Transfer to habitable zone: Close approaches of the gas giant boost its apoapsis past the habitable zone. Allow precession and timing to cause a close approach as it crosses the habitable zone, with your planet moving inward, the gas giant moving outward, and your planet slinging around the sunward side of the gas giant. This is equivalent to a large radial burn and should serve to mostly circularize its orbit in that position.
Optional - safety: If the gas giant is on such a long-period orbit, it will go quite far from your sun. A passing star/red dwarf/similarly massive object should be sufficient to divert it from making further passes deep within your solar system and messing up what's been set up.
answered yesterday
SkylerSkyler
37027
37027
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An extremely powerful nearby pulsar that only hits one edge of the planet.
While this is a rather "out-there" scenario, it's possible for a nearby, very powerful pulsar to repeatedly hit the planet during a small portion of its orbit, but only hit it on one side. This would impart a force to one side of the planet, slowly spinning it up over time the same way you can spin a ball by hitting one side of it.
As a worked example, let's arbitrarily say that the planet takes up a half an arcsecond from the point of view of the pulsar. That's in the same rough angular size as Earth is from Pluto's perspective, so it sounds reasonable. We'll say that the pulsar is as powerful as the Crab Nebula pulsar, so a power of $10^{28} W$ according to this. The pulsar spins, so that half-arcsecond planet is getting hit by one of the two beams a total of $1/296000$ of the time. That translates to getting full power $1/2592000$ of the time, which means that our average power is $10^{28} W / 2592000 = 4*10^{21} W$. If the planet is getting this for, say $1/10000$ of its orbit (I'm just pulling numbers out of my [REDACTED] here, but it sounds reasonable), the average power is $4*10^{17} W$. Now, the rotational energy of the earth is $2.138*10^{29} J$, and our planet is double its mass, so we quadruple the energy (remember, kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared) to come up with a required kinetic energy of $8.56*10^{29} J$. Now, if the pulsar were to transfer energy with perfect efficiency, and we ignore the forces that tidally locked the planet in the first place, this would restart the rotation in $8.56*10^{29} J/4*10^{21} W = 2475 ~days$. We can assume an energy transfer of, let's randomly say 0.00001% because of most of the pulsar beam missing the planet and some of the energy being transferred to heat and translation instead of rotation, that moves the required time up to about 68 million earth years, still within your hundred million year timeframe.
So, in conclusion, my worked example with half the numbers made up and most of the other half being Fermi estimates seems to work. I'm not sure what that level of radio waves will do to a planet, and I doubt it would be pretty or at all nice to any life present, but it seems to work to restart the spin. If anyone has numbers for any of the stuff I completely made up, please comment and I'll change them to actually correct values.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An extremely powerful nearby pulsar that only hits one edge of the planet.
While this is a rather "out-there" scenario, it's possible for a nearby, very powerful pulsar to repeatedly hit the planet during a small portion of its orbit, but only hit it on one side. This would impart a force to one side of the planet, slowly spinning it up over time the same way you can spin a ball by hitting one side of it.
As a worked example, let's arbitrarily say that the planet takes up a half an arcsecond from the point of view of the pulsar. That's in the same rough angular size as Earth is from Pluto's perspective, so it sounds reasonable. We'll say that the pulsar is as powerful as the Crab Nebula pulsar, so a power of $10^{28} W$ according to this. The pulsar spins, so that half-arcsecond planet is getting hit by one of the two beams a total of $1/296000$ of the time. That translates to getting full power $1/2592000$ of the time, which means that our average power is $10^{28} W / 2592000 = 4*10^{21} W$. If the planet is getting this for, say $1/10000$ of its orbit (I'm just pulling numbers out of my [REDACTED] here, but it sounds reasonable), the average power is $4*10^{17} W$. Now, the rotational energy of the earth is $2.138*10^{29} J$, and our planet is double its mass, so we quadruple the energy (remember, kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared) to come up with a required kinetic energy of $8.56*10^{29} J$. Now, if the pulsar were to transfer energy with perfect efficiency, and we ignore the forces that tidally locked the planet in the first place, this would restart the rotation in $8.56*10^{29} J/4*10^{21} W = 2475 ~days$. We can assume an energy transfer of, let's randomly say 0.00001% because of most of the pulsar beam missing the planet and some of the energy being transferred to heat and translation instead of rotation, that moves the required time up to about 68 million earth years, still within your hundred million year timeframe.
So, in conclusion, my worked example with half the numbers made up and most of the other half being Fermi estimates seems to work. I'm not sure what that level of radio waves will do to a planet, and I doubt it would be pretty or at all nice to any life present, but it seems to work to restart the spin. If anyone has numbers for any of the stuff I completely made up, please comment and I'll change them to actually correct values.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An extremely powerful nearby pulsar that only hits one edge of the planet.
While this is a rather "out-there" scenario, it's possible for a nearby, very powerful pulsar to repeatedly hit the planet during a small portion of its orbit, but only hit it on one side. This would impart a force to one side of the planet, slowly spinning it up over time the same way you can spin a ball by hitting one side of it.
As a worked example, let's arbitrarily say that the planet takes up a half an arcsecond from the point of view of the pulsar. That's in the same rough angular size as Earth is from Pluto's perspective, so it sounds reasonable. We'll say that the pulsar is as powerful as the Crab Nebula pulsar, so a power of $10^{28} W$ according to this. The pulsar spins, so that half-arcsecond planet is getting hit by one of the two beams a total of $1/296000$ of the time. That translates to getting full power $1/2592000$ of the time, which means that our average power is $10^{28} W / 2592000 = 4*10^{21} W$. If the planet is getting this for, say $1/10000$ of its orbit (I'm just pulling numbers out of my [REDACTED] here, but it sounds reasonable), the average power is $4*10^{17} W$. Now, the rotational energy of the earth is $2.138*10^{29} J$, and our planet is double its mass, so we quadruple the energy (remember, kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared) to come up with a required kinetic energy of $8.56*10^{29} J$. Now, if the pulsar were to transfer energy with perfect efficiency, and we ignore the forces that tidally locked the planet in the first place, this would restart the rotation in $8.56*10^{29} J/4*10^{21} W = 2475 ~days$. We can assume an energy transfer of, let's randomly say 0.00001% because of most of the pulsar beam missing the planet and some of the energy being transferred to heat and translation instead of rotation, that moves the required time up to about 68 million earth years, still within your hundred million year timeframe.
So, in conclusion, my worked example with half the numbers made up and most of the other half being Fermi estimates seems to work. I'm not sure what that level of radio waves will do to a planet, and I doubt it would be pretty or at all nice to any life present, but it seems to work to restart the spin. If anyone has numbers for any of the stuff I completely made up, please comment and I'll change them to actually correct values.
$endgroup$
An extremely powerful nearby pulsar that only hits one edge of the planet.
While this is a rather "out-there" scenario, it's possible for a nearby, very powerful pulsar to repeatedly hit the planet during a small portion of its orbit, but only hit it on one side. This would impart a force to one side of the planet, slowly spinning it up over time the same way you can spin a ball by hitting one side of it.
As a worked example, let's arbitrarily say that the planet takes up a half an arcsecond from the point of view of the pulsar. That's in the same rough angular size as Earth is from Pluto's perspective, so it sounds reasonable. We'll say that the pulsar is as powerful as the Crab Nebula pulsar, so a power of $10^{28} W$ according to this. The pulsar spins, so that half-arcsecond planet is getting hit by one of the two beams a total of $1/296000$ of the time. That translates to getting full power $1/2592000$ of the time, which means that our average power is $10^{28} W / 2592000 = 4*10^{21} W$. If the planet is getting this for, say $1/10000$ of its orbit (I'm just pulling numbers out of my [REDACTED] here, but it sounds reasonable), the average power is $4*10^{17} W$. Now, the rotational energy of the earth is $2.138*10^{29} J$, and our planet is double its mass, so we quadruple the energy (remember, kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared) to come up with a required kinetic energy of $8.56*10^{29} J$. Now, if the pulsar were to transfer energy with perfect efficiency, and we ignore the forces that tidally locked the planet in the first place, this would restart the rotation in $8.56*10^{29} J/4*10^{21} W = 2475 ~days$. We can assume an energy transfer of, let's randomly say 0.00001% because of most of the pulsar beam missing the planet and some of the energy being transferred to heat and translation instead of rotation, that moves the required time up to about 68 million earth years, still within your hundred million year timeframe.
So, in conclusion, my worked example with half the numbers made up and most of the other half being Fermi estimates seems to work. I'm not sure what that level of radio waves will do to a planet, and I doubt it would be pretty or at all nice to any life present, but it seems to work to restart the spin. If anyone has numbers for any of the stuff I completely made up, please comment and I'll change them to actually correct values.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
GryphonGryphon
3,88722962
3,88722962
6
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
6
6
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't think you're going to have much of a planet left after you get it spun up. The gravitational binding energy of your planet is only around a thousand times higher than your desired rotational kinetic energy; almost all of the energy from the pulsar beam is going to be absorbed as heat rather than converted to kinetic energy, so after your 2475 days, you're going to have (at best) a molten ball of rock on the verge of exploding into an asteroid belt, and you're certainly going to have a planetary ring system from blowing the surface into orbit.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, by radial mass redistribution.
Something similar to the iron catastrophe on early Earth, or the melting of ice caps after ice ages.
If something rises the internal temperature, it could trigger the migration of heavy materials towards the center of the planet, therefore reducing the moment of inertia and accelerating the rotation. As in the case of the iron catastrophe, the friction generated by the mass migration to the core will produce further warming and accelerate the process even further.
The heating of the planet's interior required to trigger such process can happen by multiple processes, like extra insulation from a thickening crust or deposits of some kind of snow. Natural accumulation of radioactive minerals (as it happened in Uranium mines) that reach critical mass to start a natural nuclear reactor. Or, maybe the tidal locking stopped or slowed down volcanism and that could rise the internal temperature enough to trigger the process.
A similar effect could happen even when cooling. A phase change can happen that transform a light mineral into a heavy one, but in that case the frictional heating would stop the process instead of accelerating it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, by radial mass redistribution.
Something similar to the iron catastrophe on early Earth, or the melting of ice caps after ice ages.
If something rises the internal temperature, it could trigger the migration of heavy materials towards the center of the planet, therefore reducing the moment of inertia and accelerating the rotation. As in the case of the iron catastrophe, the friction generated by the mass migration to the core will produce further warming and accelerate the process even further.
The heating of the planet's interior required to trigger such process can happen by multiple processes, like extra insulation from a thickening crust or deposits of some kind of snow. Natural accumulation of radioactive minerals (as it happened in Uranium mines) that reach critical mass to start a natural nuclear reactor. Or, maybe the tidal locking stopped or slowed down volcanism and that could rise the internal temperature enough to trigger the process.
A similar effect could happen even when cooling. A phase change can happen that transform a light mineral into a heavy one, but in that case the frictional heating would stop the process instead of accelerating it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, by radial mass redistribution.
Something similar to the iron catastrophe on early Earth, or the melting of ice caps after ice ages.
If something rises the internal temperature, it could trigger the migration of heavy materials towards the center of the planet, therefore reducing the moment of inertia and accelerating the rotation. As in the case of the iron catastrophe, the friction generated by the mass migration to the core will produce further warming and accelerate the process even further.
The heating of the planet's interior required to trigger such process can happen by multiple processes, like extra insulation from a thickening crust or deposits of some kind of snow. Natural accumulation of radioactive minerals (as it happened in Uranium mines) that reach critical mass to start a natural nuclear reactor. Or, maybe the tidal locking stopped or slowed down volcanism and that could rise the internal temperature enough to trigger the process.
A similar effect could happen even when cooling. A phase change can happen that transform a light mineral into a heavy one, but in that case the frictional heating would stop the process instead of accelerating it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Yes, by radial mass redistribution.
Something similar to the iron catastrophe on early Earth, or the melting of ice caps after ice ages.
If something rises the internal temperature, it could trigger the migration of heavy materials towards the center of the planet, therefore reducing the moment of inertia and accelerating the rotation. As in the case of the iron catastrophe, the friction generated by the mass migration to the core will produce further warming and accelerate the process even further.
The heating of the planet's interior required to trigger such process can happen by multiple processes, like extra insulation from a thickening crust or deposits of some kind of snow. Natural accumulation of radioactive minerals (as it happened in Uranium mines) that reach critical mass to start a natural nuclear reactor. Or, maybe the tidal locking stopped or slowed down volcanism and that could rise the internal temperature enough to trigger the process.
A similar effect could happen even when cooling. A phase change can happen that transform a light mineral into a heavy one, but in that case the frictional heating would stop the process instead of accelerating it.
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered yesterday
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
1413
1413
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question doesn't seem to forbid technological methods, so there are a few options there.
The obvious solution would be to put a giant Catherine wheel of angled thrusters around the Equator, and start making the thing rotate. You may want to build a geostationary ring around the planet and link it with the surface with space elevator cables and put thrusters on the circle, in order to avoid blowing the atmosphere away. Keeping the contraption stable and in one piece will require some work, but I assume that's the kind of small engineering problems that won't stop you. You can also replace the atmosphere afterwards (or store it for the duration).
The problem is, you have to overcome the attraction between the tide bulge and the star, so this will require some serious impulse from your planetary thrusters. Which means big, expensive thrusters and the risk of ripping the entire planet apart and turn it into a molten ball of volcanic madness. So the brute force approach is not a good idea.
Instead of trying to make it rotate in one go, you can impart some pendulum movement, pushing in one direction then the other, making it follow the final phase of tidal locking in reverse. At some point, the pendulum movement will be big enough to make a complete revolution, at which point you can simply keep pushing to accelerate to the required rotation speed.
Now, what engines to use? Low-grade mass drivers would make you either dig giant holes in the surface or require lots of mass from elsewhere in the system. You could if you are in a hurry (those are cheap, low Isp/high impulse engines), but that's rather inelegant.
You could use photonic thrusters (aka giant spotlights) if you have good powerplants like matter-energy converters, are in no hurry and there is no-one flying around to be dazzled. More traffic-friendly exotic versions may be possible, for example emitting neutrinos or gravitational waves, in case your neighbours complain about the light show.
There is a middle ground of particle accelerators, requiring much less mass (and being more refined) than the mass drivers, but giving more thrust than pure photonic engines. The simplest version will heat matter into superhot plasma and let it escape by a nozzle at some fraction of c.
Of course, you have a big fusion powerplant already available, so you can take advantage of that. If you are in no hurry, put giant solar sails on your orbital ring and turn it into a (solar) windmill. Feel free to put mirrors all around the star to help concentrate energy on the sails. Or, if you have fancier tastes, put a light Dyson swarm there and have the collectors beam the power with lasers or focused particle accelerators. That may help avoiding cooking the surface with the unfocused mirrors.
Alternatively, if you don't want to build things on the planet itself, put those on local planetoids and move them around. With the right grazing trajectories, you can use gravitational tugging to start making the planet wobble. Once it starts rotating, a low orbit, fast-orbiting moon may help a bit for accelerating it. Be careful to not overdo it, you may cause more volcanisme than desired otherwise.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question doesn't seem to forbid technological methods, so there are a few options there.
The obvious solution would be to put a giant Catherine wheel of angled thrusters around the Equator, and start making the thing rotate. You may want to build a geostationary ring around the planet and link it with the surface with space elevator cables and put thrusters on the circle, in order to avoid blowing the atmosphere away. Keeping the contraption stable and in one piece will require some work, but I assume that's the kind of small engineering problems that won't stop you. You can also replace the atmosphere afterwards (or store it for the duration).
The problem is, you have to overcome the attraction between the tide bulge and the star, so this will require some serious impulse from your planetary thrusters. Which means big, expensive thrusters and the risk of ripping the entire planet apart and turn it into a molten ball of volcanic madness. So the brute force approach is not a good idea.
Instead of trying to make it rotate in one go, you can impart some pendulum movement, pushing in one direction then the other, making it follow the final phase of tidal locking in reverse. At some point, the pendulum movement will be big enough to make a complete revolution, at which point you can simply keep pushing to accelerate to the required rotation speed.
Now, what engines to use? Low-grade mass drivers would make you either dig giant holes in the surface or require lots of mass from elsewhere in the system. You could if you are in a hurry (those are cheap, low Isp/high impulse engines), but that's rather inelegant.
You could use photonic thrusters (aka giant spotlights) if you have good powerplants like matter-energy converters, are in no hurry and there is no-one flying around to be dazzled. More traffic-friendly exotic versions may be possible, for example emitting neutrinos or gravitational waves, in case your neighbours complain about the light show.
There is a middle ground of particle accelerators, requiring much less mass (and being more refined) than the mass drivers, but giving more thrust than pure photonic engines. The simplest version will heat matter into superhot plasma and let it escape by a nozzle at some fraction of c.
Of course, you have a big fusion powerplant already available, so you can take advantage of that. If you are in no hurry, put giant solar sails on your orbital ring and turn it into a (solar) windmill. Feel free to put mirrors all around the star to help concentrate energy on the sails. Or, if you have fancier tastes, put a light Dyson swarm there and have the collectors beam the power with lasers or focused particle accelerators. That may help avoiding cooking the surface with the unfocused mirrors.
Alternatively, if you don't want to build things on the planet itself, put those on local planetoids and move them around. With the right grazing trajectories, you can use gravitational tugging to start making the planet wobble. Once it starts rotating, a low orbit, fast-orbiting moon may help a bit for accelerating it. Be careful to not overdo it, you may cause more volcanisme than desired otherwise.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question doesn't seem to forbid technological methods, so there are a few options there.
The obvious solution would be to put a giant Catherine wheel of angled thrusters around the Equator, and start making the thing rotate. You may want to build a geostationary ring around the planet and link it with the surface with space elevator cables and put thrusters on the circle, in order to avoid blowing the atmosphere away. Keeping the contraption stable and in one piece will require some work, but I assume that's the kind of small engineering problems that won't stop you. You can also replace the atmosphere afterwards (or store it for the duration).
The problem is, you have to overcome the attraction between the tide bulge and the star, so this will require some serious impulse from your planetary thrusters. Which means big, expensive thrusters and the risk of ripping the entire planet apart and turn it into a molten ball of volcanic madness. So the brute force approach is not a good idea.
Instead of trying to make it rotate in one go, you can impart some pendulum movement, pushing in one direction then the other, making it follow the final phase of tidal locking in reverse. At some point, the pendulum movement will be big enough to make a complete revolution, at which point you can simply keep pushing to accelerate to the required rotation speed.
Now, what engines to use? Low-grade mass drivers would make you either dig giant holes in the surface or require lots of mass from elsewhere in the system. You could if you are in a hurry (those are cheap, low Isp/high impulse engines), but that's rather inelegant.
You could use photonic thrusters (aka giant spotlights) if you have good powerplants like matter-energy converters, are in no hurry and there is no-one flying around to be dazzled. More traffic-friendly exotic versions may be possible, for example emitting neutrinos or gravitational waves, in case your neighbours complain about the light show.
There is a middle ground of particle accelerators, requiring much less mass (and being more refined) than the mass drivers, but giving more thrust than pure photonic engines. The simplest version will heat matter into superhot plasma and let it escape by a nozzle at some fraction of c.
Of course, you have a big fusion powerplant already available, so you can take advantage of that. If you are in no hurry, put giant solar sails on your orbital ring and turn it into a (solar) windmill. Feel free to put mirrors all around the star to help concentrate energy on the sails. Or, if you have fancier tastes, put a light Dyson swarm there and have the collectors beam the power with lasers or focused particle accelerators. That may help avoiding cooking the surface with the unfocused mirrors.
Alternatively, if you don't want to build things on the planet itself, put those on local planetoids and move them around. With the right grazing trajectories, you can use gravitational tugging to start making the planet wobble. Once it starts rotating, a low orbit, fast-orbiting moon may help a bit for accelerating it. Be careful to not overdo it, you may cause more volcanisme than desired otherwise.
$endgroup$
The question doesn't seem to forbid technological methods, so there are a few options there.
The obvious solution would be to put a giant Catherine wheel of angled thrusters around the Equator, and start making the thing rotate. You may want to build a geostationary ring around the planet and link it with the surface with space elevator cables and put thrusters on the circle, in order to avoid blowing the atmosphere away. Keeping the contraption stable and in one piece will require some work, but I assume that's the kind of small engineering problems that won't stop you. You can also replace the atmosphere afterwards (or store it for the duration).
The problem is, you have to overcome the attraction between the tide bulge and the star, so this will require some serious impulse from your planetary thrusters. Which means big, expensive thrusters and the risk of ripping the entire planet apart and turn it into a molten ball of volcanic madness. So the brute force approach is not a good idea.
Instead of trying to make it rotate in one go, you can impart some pendulum movement, pushing in one direction then the other, making it follow the final phase of tidal locking in reverse. At some point, the pendulum movement will be big enough to make a complete revolution, at which point you can simply keep pushing to accelerate to the required rotation speed.
Now, what engines to use? Low-grade mass drivers would make you either dig giant holes in the surface or require lots of mass from elsewhere in the system. You could if you are in a hurry (those are cheap, low Isp/high impulse engines), but that's rather inelegant.
You could use photonic thrusters (aka giant spotlights) if you have good powerplants like matter-energy converters, are in no hurry and there is no-one flying around to be dazzled. More traffic-friendly exotic versions may be possible, for example emitting neutrinos or gravitational waves, in case your neighbours complain about the light show.
There is a middle ground of particle accelerators, requiring much less mass (and being more refined) than the mass drivers, but giving more thrust than pure photonic engines. The simplest version will heat matter into superhot plasma and let it escape by a nozzle at some fraction of c.
Of course, you have a big fusion powerplant already available, so you can take advantage of that. If you are in no hurry, put giant solar sails on your orbital ring and turn it into a (solar) windmill. Feel free to put mirrors all around the star to help concentrate energy on the sails. Or, if you have fancier tastes, put a light Dyson swarm there and have the collectors beam the power with lasers or focused particle accelerators. That may help avoiding cooking the surface with the unfocused mirrors.
Alternatively, if you don't want to build things on the planet itself, put those on local planetoids and move them around. With the right grazing trajectories, you can use gravitational tugging to start making the planet wobble. Once it starts rotating, a low orbit, fast-orbiting moon may help a bit for accelerating it. Be careful to not overdo it, you may cause more volcanisme than desired otherwise.
answered yesterday
EthEth
2,3061617
2,3061617
2
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
I did note that I was looking for natural methods, not artificial ones, which have been covered in another question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@HDE226868 Welp, not sure how I missed it when I checked the question...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
That's partly on me; I could have made it more obvious.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Referencing this answer.
Based on information in the answer above, liquid planets/moons (like Europa) take much longer to tidal lock. Per the Wikipedia entry for Europa, it may not be fully tidal locked even now. Perhaps a concentration of greenhouse gases caused the frozen surface to melt. Throw in some near misses from other large bodies and you might be able to get the planet spinning again.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Referencing this answer.
Based on information in the answer above, liquid planets/moons (like Europa) take much longer to tidal lock. Per the Wikipedia entry for Europa, it may not be fully tidal locked even now. Perhaps a concentration of greenhouse gases caused the frozen surface to melt. Throw in some near misses from other large bodies and you might be able to get the planet spinning again.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Referencing this answer.
Based on information in the answer above, liquid planets/moons (like Europa) take much longer to tidal lock. Per the Wikipedia entry for Europa, it may not be fully tidal locked even now. Perhaps a concentration of greenhouse gases caused the frozen surface to melt. Throw in some near misses from other large bodies and you might be able to get the planet spinning again.
$endgroup$
Referencing this answer.
Based on information in the answer above, liquid planets/moons (like Europa) take much longer to tidal lock. Per the Wikipedia entry for Europa, it may not be fully tidal locked even now. Perhaps a concentration of greenhouse gases caused the frozen surface to melt. Throw in some near misses from other large bodies and you might be able to get the planet spinning again.
answered yesterday
sevensevenssevensevens
3905
3905
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I quite follow. I get that some bodies take longer to tidally lock than others; that makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we exploit that to reverse the process entirely once it's already happened.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
Essentially, turn it from something that is easy(er) to tidal lock (frozen planet) to something that is more difficult. Especially if during the melting phase it had a few near misses or caught a moon (not sure if that's possible) it could start spinning independently again. The planet melting would slow the tidal re-lock.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm sorry; I still don't understand. Melting ice won't change the planet's angular momentum; you still need some other event to change the rotation, right? This doesn't seem to really answer my question.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
A near miss from another large planet would. The melting would prevent re-locking.
$endgroup$
– sevensevens
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I might suggest the introduction of another massive body into the system; rather than an actual impact.
Numerous interstellar planetoids do exist, and every now and then we'll find one or two entering our own solar system. The usual clue that gives them away as extra-stellar is that they have a hyperbolic trajectory, instead of an ellipsoidal one, which can't come about in-system.
If this was a massive enough body, or one that moved slowly enough (though there are restrictions within reasonability there), the perturbation of the gravitational field would cause a tidal effect on the planet, potentially one strong enough to realign its axis of rotation and pull it out of being tidally locked to its host star. Afterward, the planetoid could pass out of the system on its merry way, and the tidal effect would be over.
In most cases, it would take some time to occur; but it would happen as the whole system would be destabilized.
The foreign object could be anything from a particularly large interstellar asteroid to a hypervelocity black hole.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I might suggest the introduction of another massive body into the system; rather than an actual impact.
Numerous interstellar planetoids do exist, and every now and then we'll find one or two entering our own solar system. The usual clue that gives them away as extra-stellar is that they have a hyperbolic trajectory, instead of an ellipsoidal one, which can't come about in-system.
If this was a massive enough body, or one that moved slowly enough (though there are restrictions within reasonability there), the perturbation of the gravitational field would cause a tidal effect on the planet, potentially one strong enough to realign its axis of rotation and pull it out of being tidally locked to its host star. Afterward, the planetoid could pass out of the system on its merry way, and the tidal effect would be over.
In most cases, it would take some time to occur; but it would happen as the whole system would be destabilized.
The foreign object could be anything from a particularly large interstellar asteroid to a hypervelocity black hole.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I might suggest the introduction of another massive body into the system; rather than an actual impact.
Numerous interstellar planetoids do exist, and every now and then we'll find one or two entering our own solar system. The usual clue that gives them away as extra-stellar is that they have a hyperbolic trajectory, instead of an ellipsoidal one, which can't come about in-system.
If this was a massive enough body, or one that moved slowly enough (though there are restrictions within reasonability there), the perturbation of the gravitational field would cause a tidal effect on the planet, potentially one strong enough to realign its axis of rotation and pull it out of being tidally locked to its host star. Afterward, the planetoid could pass out of the system on its merry way, and the tidal effect would be over.
In most cases, it would take some time to occur; but it would happen as the whole system would be destabilized.
The foreign object could be anything from a particularly large interstellar asteroid to a hypervelocity black hole.
$endgroup$
I might suggest the introduction of another massive body into the system; rather than an actual impact.
Numerous interstellar planetoids do exist, and every now and then we'll find one or two entering our own solar system. The usual clue that gives them away as extra-stellar is that they have a hyperbolic trajectory, instead of an ellipsoidal one, which can't come about in-system.
If this was a massive enough body, or one that moved slowly enough (though there are restrictions within reasonability there), the perturbation of the gravitational field would cause a tidal effect on the planet, potentially one strong enough to realign its axis of rotation and pull it out of being tidally locked to its host star. Afterward, the planetoid could pass out of the system on its merry way, and the tidal effect would be over.
In most cases, it would take some time to occur; but it would happen as the whole system would be destabilized.
The foreign object could be anything from a particularly large interstellar asteroid to a hypervelocity black hole.
answered yesterday
Michael Eric OberlinMichael Eric Oberlin
986413
986413
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Planet 9. Have a large planet whose orbit comes into the inner solar system only every few thousand years on only 1 in a hundred/thousand times would it be close enough to effect your planet. Depending on how close it passes it could have a huge effect on your planets orbit and spin.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Planet 9. Have a large planet whose orbit comes into the inner solar system only every few thousand years on only 1 in a hundred/thousand times would it be close enough to effect your planet. Depending on how close it passes it could have a huge effect on your planets orbit and spin.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Planet 9. Have a large planet whose orbit comes into the inner solar system only every few thousand years on only 1 in a hundred/thousand times would it be close enough to effect your planet. Depending on how close it passes it could have a huge effect on your planets orbit and spin.
$endgroup$
Planet 9. Have a large planet whose orbit comes into the inner solar system only every few thousand years on only 1 in a hundred/thousand times would it be close enough to effect your planet. Depending on how close it passes it could have a huge effect on your planets orbit and spin.
answered yesterday
R HansenR Hansen
311
311
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139457%2fcan-a-planet-be-tidally-unlocked%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
50
$begingroup$
...but you're the orbital mechanics guy!
$endgroup$
– Frostfyre
yesterday
30
$begingroup$
This... This is like Mary Berry asking me to give her advice on how to bake cakes...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
yesterday
9
$begingroup$
That's simple, remove the star. Oh, "habitable". well, if you don't want to do what it takes...
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
13
$begingroup$
What's cool about this question is that it's one of those, "I can't believe that's never been asked here before!" questions.
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Eth It might be conceivable, though, to have it originally tidally locked to a gas giant and then remove that?
$endgroup$
– Aesin
yesterday